Redskins Trademark cancelled

Chiefs, Braves ,Indians and Blackhawks are not racist terms ,what is the argument against them ?

It's very offensive to call a NA "chief" unless they are actually a Chief of a tribe. The point with the Indians (Cleveland) is their logo. The Braves have the tomahawk chant that is not very well received by the NA nation from what I hear, and there has been issues against the Blackhawks.

It doesn't have to be anything associated with race to be considered offensive.

This is truly getting rediculous with immense stupidity on the horizon.

It's very offensive to call a NA "chief" unless they are actually a Chief of a tribe. The point with the Indians (Cleveland) is their logo. The Braves have the tomahawk chant that is not very well received by the NA nation from what I hear, and there has been issues against the Blackhawks.

It doesn't have to be anything associated with race to be considered offensive.

Some Native Americans feel like those mascots dehumanize their people (http://www.aics.org/mascot/truth.html). Who knows what percentage actually hold that opinion, but it is where some of the problem with those names you mentioned comes from.

Didn't Cleveland get rid of the Indian logo? Thought they went with just the C now.

Chiefs, Braves ,Indians and Blackhawks are not racist terms ,what is the argument against them ?Redskins isn't a racist term. What is the argument against it?

BTW, more than one NA"activist" has said ALL the above names are racist. So where is the line between what is racist and isn't? And does it stop at NA names, or do we consider other names NFL teams use?

Using Native Americans/Native American imagery in general is where the issue is.

Maybe with some but not all of them ,I've heard the argument about the name Redskin ,not saying I agree with it but there is an argument out there .As for the other names I haven't heard the argument against them (yet),the term Brave nor is Chief is not demeaning and as for the chant (that can be stopped very easily) so what is the real argument ?


P.S

Washington Redskins racist? Native American views on NFL team name | The MMQB with Peter King (http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washington-nfl-team-name-debate/)

the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes

BTW, more than one NA"activist" has said ALL the above names are racist.

ok , who ?

Don't be naive, Redskins is just the tip of the iceberg. If that name changes it's only a matter of time for the rest.

Plaintiff in Redskins case urges Chiefs to change their name | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/)

Don't be naive, Redskins is just the tip of the iceberg. If that name changes it's only a matter of time for the rest.

Plaintiff in Redskins case urges Chiefs to change their name | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/)


I agree but what I am asking is what is the argument ,the argument is the the term "Redskin " is racist " ok lets say it is ,ok now what is the argument for Chief and Brave or Seminoles ,it can't be the same argument and I'll throw it to JR how do you change the argument from Redskin to Brave or Chief both are used differently ?

Peter king aka "it's Pat", wrote skins will change their name by 2016. Of course florio popped wood and posted an article about it today hinting it's pat had inside info.